It is becoming clear that a crisis is looming over the recruitment of natural scientists in museums. Many in the sector have seen an apparent lack of suitable applicants for natural science jobs that has sometimes resulted in posts being redefined or even deleted. This is an extremely worrying trend - but perhaps this trend is not all it seems.
The situation is not helped by some fundamental misunderstandings about natural science, which are being reinforced at many levels of the museum profession. Even the term 'natural history' or 'natural science' is causing difficulties. Many people see these as interchangeable, while others regard them as slightly more distinctive.
My understanding is that natural history/science refers to and encompasses all areas of study in the natural world. In a museum setting, this includes biology and geology. Sub-categories would include botany, zoology, palaeontology, mineralogy and petrology.
Misunderstandings about natural science have been compounded by conversations regarding the recruitment of staff. When asked if they had plenty of applications for their natural history post, museum managers responses have varied between: 'We hardly had any natural history applicants, but we had lots of geologists', 'Very few applied, apart from those with backgrounds in palaeontology', and 'No one with museum qualifications applied'.
As many university undergraduate courses in biology and geology move away from a traditional approach and concentrate more on industrial, commercial or ecological applications, there are fewer graduates with an interest in taxonomy, systematics or simply ordering and naming nature. This leads to another important element of this trend: is it reasonable to expect natural scientist graduates to have a museum studies qualification?
There are few natural scientists taking museum studies qualifications. Perhaps the perception from graduates is that available courses cater less for them and more for arts and humanities, resulting in fewer applications and forcing the focus of postgraduate courses to move away from natural sciences and on and on in ever decreasing circles.
Of the main academic museum studies providers, the University of Leicester had no students taking the natural science option in the past academic year (2004/05) and the University of Newcastle has enrolled two or three natural science students each year (from an intake of 80) for the past three years.
But in some organisations, museum studies qualifications are essential for jobs, rather than desirable. This must put off prospective natural science candidates, who to become curators of entomology, for example, must prove their expertise in a narrower academic field than at first degree, then gain yet another qualification, at yet more expense. This is all before they can even begin a career that is still relatively low-paid for a scientist.
Whereas the 'museum' part of the curators' job may be gained through in-house training and apprenticeships, a good grounding in science, systematics and taxonomy is not as easy to achieve. Equally, because there is such competition for archaeology, art and history posts in the museum community, museum studies qualifications have become a way of reducing the field. But if no archaeologists were undertaking a museums qualification, why expect to use this as a selection criterion?
None of this is intended to undermine museum studies courses. They are extremely useful for anyone undertaking a museum career, and after 15 years working in museums I have recently begun such a course. But not every curator, collections manager or director has a museum studies qualification and many still do a good job.
The apparent gap in key competencies that are required to work with natural history collections could be bridged through museum curatorial groups and Subject Specialist Networks providing training and support.
At a time when the museum profession is seeking to expand its recruitment base and recognise all its specialisms, a museum manager should be looking for different ways to recruit natural history curators. There are four ways we can help to avert a crisis in natural science recruitment:
1) Within the museum profession, all geologists and biologists must agree on the meaning of the term 'natural history' and stop talking at cross purposes.
2) We need to focus on those areas of natural history that appear to be suffering at degree level. We should highlight careers in museums to students as they commit to their first degree or earlier, and perhaps begin to lobby universities to at least tell students that much of what they are learning is taxonomy.
3) Museums needs to encourage and support natural science volunteers to undertake a museum studies course or to learn to accept voluntary experience as an equivalent to a qualification.
4) Ultimately, we need to create an environment where subject specialists discuss these issues and are listened to by those creating recruitment criteria and person specifications for museum posts, and develop a clear understanding of what a natural historian/scientist is.
Helen Fothergill is the recorder for the Geological Curators Group and the keeper of natural history at Plymouth City Museum & Art Gallery
The situation is not helped by some fundamental misunderstandings about natural science, which are being reinforced at many levels of the museum profession. Even the term 'natural history' or 'natural science' is causing difficulties. Many people see these as interchangeable, while others regard them as slightly more distinctive.
My understanding is that natural history/science refers to and encompasses all areas of study in the natural world. In a museum setting, this includes biology and geology. Sub-categories would include botany, zoology, palaeontology, mineralogy and petrology.
Misunderstandings about natural science have been compounded by conversations regarding the recruitment of staff. When asked if they had plenty of applications for their natural history post, museum managers responses have varied between: 'We hardly had any natural history applicants, but we had lots of geologists', 'Very few applied, apart from those with backgrounds in palaeontology', and 'No one with museum qualifications applied'.
As many university undergraduate courses in biology and geology move away from a traditional approach and concentrate more on industrial, commercial or ecological applications, there are fewer graduates with an interest in taxonomy, systematics or simply ordering and naming nature. This leads to another important element of this trend: is it reasonable to expect natural scientist graduates to have a museum studies qualification?
There are few natural scientists taking museum studies qualifications. Perhaps the perception from graduates is that available courses cater less for them and more for arts and humanities, resulting in fewer applications and forcing the focus of postgraduate courses to move away from natural sciences and on and on in ever decreasing circles.
Of the main academic museum studies providers, the University of Leicester had no students taking the natural science option in the past academic year (2004/05) and the University of Newcastle has enrolled two or three natural science students each year (from an intake of 80) for the past three years.
But in some organisations, museum studies qualifications are essential for jobs, rather than desirable. This must put off prospective natural science candidates, who to become curators of entomology, for example, must prove their expertise in a narrower academic field than at first degree, then gain yet another qualification, at yet more expense. This is all before they can even begin a career that is still relatively low-paid for a scientist.
Whereas the 'museum' part of the curators' job may be gained through in-house training and apprenticeships, a good grounding in science, systematics and taxonomy is not as easy to achieve. Equally, because there is such competition for archaeology, art and history posts in the museum community, museum studies qualifications have become a way of reducing the field. But if no archaeologists were undertaking a museums qualification, why expect to use this as a selection criterion?
None of this is intended to undermine museum studies courses. They are extremely useful for anyone undertaking a museum career, and after 15 years working in museums I have recently begun such a course. But not every curator, collections manager or director has a museum studies qualification and many still do a good job.
The apparent gap in key competencies that are required to work with natural history collections could be bridged through museum curatorial groups and Subject Specialist Networks providing training and support.
At a time when the museum profession is seeking to expand its recruitment base and recognise all its specialisms, a museum manager should be looking for different ways to recruit natural history curators. There are four ways we can help to avert a crisis in natural science recruitment:
1) Within the museum profession, all geologists and biologists must agree on the meaning of the term 'natural history' and stop talking at cross purposes.
2) We need to focus on those areas of natural history that appear to be suffering at degree level. We should highlight careers in museums to students as they commit to their first degree or earlier, and perhaps begin to lobby universities to at least tell students that much of what they are learning is taxonomy.
3) Museums needs to encourage and support natural science volunteers to undertake a museum studies course or to learn to accept voluntary experience as an equivalent to a qualification.
4) Ultimately, we need to create an environment where subject specialists discuss these issues and are listened to by those creating recruitment criteria and person specifications for museum posts, and develop a clear understanding of what a natural historian/scientist is.
Helen Fothergill is the recorder for the Geological Curators Group and the keeper of natural history at Plymouth City Museum & Art Gallery
